>>To uphold the time honored institution of one man and one woman marriage, we strongly oppose this bill, thank you.

>>And today, we are proud to officially launch Virginians for Marriage Equality.

JAHD KHALIL: Virginians are voting (crowd cheering) on changes to the state constitution.

I'm Jahd Khalil, VPM's state politics reporter, and I've been talking to who's for and against the proposed amendments.

In this episode, we're talking about marriage.

The Virginia Constitution has language restricting marriage to one man and one woman, but a 2015 US Supreme Court decision overrides the state constitution, allowing same-sex couples to marry.

(guests cheering) Those looking to keep the constitution as is say the change would hurt children.

VICTORIA COBB: To intentionally create homes where someone grows up without a mom and/or a dad is putting them at a disadvantage.

JAHD KHALIL: Proponents say all Virginia families deserve legal recognition.

CHAD STEWART: We couldn't stay in a state that didn't provide us legal protections, didn't just give us the basic dignity of recognizing our family.

JAHD KHALIL: Soon, voters will weigh in.

This is "Amending Virginia."

(soft music) Same-sex marriage is legally recognized in the United States.

(guests cheering) The US Supreme Court found (crowd singing indistinctly) the unions are protected by the 14th Amendment in the 2015 decision (protester shouting faintly) Obergefell v. Hodges.

(crowd cheering) But some same-sex marriage proponents in Virginia worry those federal protections could be taken away from the roughly 16,000 couples living here if that decision were to be overturned.

Currently, Virginia's Constitution has language added in 2006 that defines marriage as solely between one man and one woman.

The newly-proposed right to marry amendment defines marriage as being between "two adult persons...regardless of sex, gender, or race."

Same-sex and interracial marriage are already legal at the federal level due to the US Supreme Court.

So why are Virginians considering this now?

Caroline Legros with the Virginia Museum of History and Culture explained why.

JAHD KHALIL: Can you talk about how the Virginia Constitution talks about marriage and kind of where we are now?

CAROLINE LEGROS: So in 2006, the Newman Amendment was passed that essentially dictated that marriage was only legal between one man and one woman.

So that amendment passed with 57% of the vote, and it stood on the books for some time as a legally enforceable prohibition against same-sex marriage.

JAHD KHALIL: But that isn't enforced, right?

Because we have same-sex marriage in Virginia now.

CAROLINE LEGROS: It's not something can be legally enforced, because it directly contradicts legal precedent set by Obergefell v. Hodges.

In that decision, the Supreme Court found that same-sex couples were entitled to the same legal protections as mixed-sex couples under the constitution.

The 2006 constitutional amendment is sort of a strange vestigial limb of a constitutional structure.

It's not something that can be legally enforced, but it still stands in the constitution, so it's sort of- JAHD KHALIL: So why is that important?

'Cause it could come back into force, right?

CAROLINE LEGROS: It could, and so that's part of why the 2026 amendment has been proposed by its proponents.

It's an attempt to sort of clean up this messy legislative-judicial circumstance where you have an existing amendment that conflicts with a constitutional ruling.

JAHD KHALIL: So there's a court case on a different topic that actually has a lot- >>Yeah.

>>Of bearing on this, too, and that's the Dobbs decision.

>>Right.

Can you talk about that?

>>Sure.

CAROLINE LEGROS: So the Dobbs decision was about the legality, the constitutionality of the right to abortion.

That decision, you know, said that the constitution did not protect explicitly an individual's right to have access to an abortion.

Some of the justices almost said explicitly that the decision in Dobbs, you could apply that same logic to whether or not the constitution did in fact protect an individual's right to same-sex marriage.

All it takes is another round of review by the court to decide, "Well, no, we misinterpreted the constitution that time," so that once the Supreme Court makes a decision on the federal level, it has those trickle-down effects for the state level.

JAHD KHALIL: After talking to Caroline, I reached out to people on either side of the issue.

I started with Victoria Cobb, the president of The Family Foundation.

She worked on the campaign to pass the Definition of Marriage Amendment in 2006.

We met at her home in the Richmond suburbs and talked about her advocacy.

VICTORIA COBB: Yeah, we actually led the pro-marriage side in 2006, so the “Yes” campaign.

That was around the time where there were efforts with things like civil unions, and then ultimately, folks that wanted to have same-sex marriage, and we took the position, as we still do, that kids deserve a mom and a dad whenever possible.

And at that point, the majority of Virginia agreed with us, and we, you know, won pretty resoundingly.

JAHD KHALIL: We often hear about people wanting to love who they want.

How do you see that sort of principle in relation to this discussion over the proposed constitutional amendment?

VICTORIA COBB: This has never been about individuals, and in fact, that is how it was sold to the people, that this is just about freedom for individuals who love each other.

Except that the reality is that what it turns into is unfortunately the need for every person in society to fully endorse that decision by folks.

What we find is that people of faith are having to defend themselves all the way to the highest courts in our land simply to be able to opt-out of being part of that celebration.

And more than that, it is fundamentally about the kids.

Every child deserves the best they can have, and that is a biological mom and dad whenever possible.

We know there are single moms, single dads doing heroic jobs, but to intentionally create homes where someone grows up without a mom and/or a dad is putting them at a disadvantage.

JAHD KHALIL: If I was somebody that was part of a family where there were, you know, two moms or two dads, or I knew somebody with two moms and two dads, I would maybe view, kind of, what you're saying with skepticism.

So for people that have those type of families, how do you convince them that your stance actually bears out in reality?

VICTORIA COBB: Talk to the young girl, the 12-year-old, about to approach womanhood who doesn't have a mom, to walk them through that process.

Talk to the young man that is trying to figure out what manhood is and doesn't have a dad.

And now, what we're seeing is support for same-sex marriage is falling, and I think some of that is that there are now adults who are speaking out about their experience, and saying, "Look, I do wish I had a mom.

I do wish I had a dad."

JAHD KHALIL: What would this proposed amendment do if it were to pass?

VICTORIA COBB: One, obviously, put into our constitution what is currently the case because of a US Supreme Court decision, but second, it would also introduce some trans ideology into our constitution, which is a big step into a direction I think a lot of Virginians aren't ready to go and don't want to go.

And then also, unfortunately, because it does not explicitly ensure that the faith community does not have to define marriage the way the law does, it creates some real legal quandaries, for example, clergy that don't want to have to do the ordination of a same-sex couple.

JAHD KHALIL: You mentioned trans ideology, what is that?

VICTORIA COBB: Yeah, so very intentionally, the politicians chose to say that any two people of any sex, gender, or race can be married in this new definition, and when you separate the idea that sex and gender are two different things, you have put into our constitution that you can have one sex biologically and one gender.

And what that will do is invite anyone who wants to establish certain rights because they view themselves as a different gender than their biological sex.

It will invite them to court to challenge anything, for example, such as biological men in women's bathrooms or men playing on women's sports.

JAHD KHALIL: I'm curious where you think, what place there is for same-sex couples in the legal context?

Like, should they have any sort of protections if they're not, you know, legally married or- VICTORIA COBB: Those were some of the arguments that were made when we were passing the original marriage amendment, was, “We need to visit our partner in the hospital.” Those contracts were being made and can be made.

You don't require marriage to do that.

Marriage is something very unique and specific, because it's about binding biological parents to their children because it gives our society, the next generation, the most stable way to grow up.

JAHD KHALIL: After speaking to Victoria, I reached out to a family concerned about losing legal recognition.

I met up with Chad Stewart at the Richmond home he shares with his husband and their daughter.

CHAD STEWART: I met my husband in college, so more than 15 years ago now, and, you know, we just started dating and married in 2015, and have lived in a few different places, but we've called Richmond home for just over a decade now.

Actually, when we got engaged, we were living in Michigan.

Michigan didn't have marriage equality, so at the time, we were thinking, "What other states are we going to go to get married?"

And I had family in Massachusetts, I had grown up there.

I saw when the Supreme Court in that state gave marriage equality in 2004, and so we decided to go there.

And we got married in 2015, just a couple weeks before the Supreme Court ruling that made it legal nationwide.

JAHD KHALIL: You were talking about the Supreme Court case, do you remember where you were when you heard about it?

CHAD STEWART: We were definitely in Detroit.

We had just gotten back from being married and we were moving to Virginia the next week, and we're like, you know, we went from a status of unmarried, at least legally, in the eyes of the state we were in, to being married.

JAHD KHALIL: How much did the Dobbs decision affect, you know, any anxiety that you have about the possibility of this old language kind of coming back in force?

CHAD STEWART: We knew that the constitutional language in our state constitution in Virginia prohibits same-sex marriage, and so if that were to become de facto in this state, we decided amongst ourselves, you know, with a child, we couldn't stay in a state that didn't provide us legal protections, didn't just give us the basic dignity of recognizing our family, so some worry, some pre-planning, but, you know, we're hopeful that this amendment will pass and there will be that added layer of protection.

JAHD KHALIL: So in terms of this amendment that's being proposed, how would its passage affect your marriage?

CHAD STEWART: It's really this cloud of uncertainty as to whether or not our marriage would be respected in this state were things to change at the federal level.

I think with the current configuration of the Supreme Court, there's a lot of worry out there in the LGBT+ community that this ruling could be overturned.

And unfortunately, there is this antiquated language in our state constitution that should that ruling at the federal level be overturned, it could threaten the legal status of our marriage here.

JAHD KHALIL: When people question your ability to raise a family when, you know, there's two dads in this family, what's your answer to those kind of critiques?

CHAD STEWART: Our family looks like a lot of families across Virginia that are raising a toddler.

I mean, we drop our kid off at daycare in the morning, go to work, pick her up, might go grocery shopping.

Weekends look like play dates, family outings, grabbing ice cream.

Pretty typical stuff for a lot of families.

And I think the central component here that we share with a lot of other families is it's just all centered around loving relationships with each other and supporting each other.

JAHD KHALIL: Some of the opponents of this amendment have talked about the sanctity of marriage, and they're worried that if this amendment passes, it could even kind of further change the way that marriage has been practiced.

What do you say to folks that say that?

CHAD STEWART: I would say we've had marriage equality in this country for more than a decade now, and the sky hasn't fallen.

Families like mine have established in Virginia and all over the country, and we just want the legal right and dignity to start our families, marry who we love without government interference in our lives.

It's about marriage, and it's about people in loving, committed relationships having the option to marry each other if they choose, and to get the legal recognition to start a family if they choose.

JAHD KHALIL: Chad says a vote for this amendment is a vote for the status quo.

That means maintaining recognition of interracial marriages or same-sex marriages like his in Virginia, even if federal protections go away.

Victoria says that protecting same-sex marriage in the state constitution would burden people of faith and weaken marriage for everyone.

By this November, voters will decide whether or not to replace the ban on same-sex marriage with the right to marry amendment in Virginia's Constitution.

There's still one more episode of "Amending Virginia."

In that, well discuss voting rights.

Until then, visit VPM.org for all of our 2026 election-related coverage.

(soft music) (logo chiming)